Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, April 15, 1993 TAG: 9304150457
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: RAY L. GARLAND
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
THE CLINTON TERROR
WHEN THE GOP seemed assured of a long lease at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Virginia's two senators seemed to aspire to a political symbiosis, somewhere in the middle of the road. Republican John Warner's olive branch to the left, represented by his vote opposing Robert Bork for the Supreme Court, was matched by Democrat Charles Robb's olive branch to the right, represented by his vote supporting Clarence Thomas for the same office.The two senators seem to get along famously. So much so, in fact, that during Robb's long ordeal his greatest champion has been none other than Warner. That may speak to Warner's natural kindliness and good humor. But it may also reflect a secret desire to maintain a bipartisan team prepared to act as mutual guarantors.
But the arrival of the Clinton Terror seems to have changed the political dynamic if not the warm personal relationship. Since the new Congress began work, Robb has almost invariably voted the Clinton line while Warner has planted both feet firmly on the other side.
Their split has been most conspicuous in votes taken on Clinton's famous $16.3 billion stimulus package that seeks to declare an "emergency" justifying the addition of this sum to an already huge 1993 deficit. But it can also be found in a whole series of votes formulating the broad outline of the $1.5 trillion budget for fiscal 1994, which begins Oct. 1.
On an amendment offered by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, freezing domestic discretionary spending for five years, Robb voted no while Warner voted yes. On Minority Leader Robert Dole's amendment to eliminate all new taxes and new spending in the Clinton plan, and to reduce the deficit through spending cuts and caps on entitlements, Robb voted no while Warner voted yes.
Small in the public mind, but looming large as a philosophical dividing point between the two parties, has been the motor-voter bill. Long a goal of liberals, it would require the states to permit registration by mail and at motor-vehicle offices. It would also require voters to be registered at all welfare and unemployment offices.
Robb has been true-blue in upholding his party's view of this bill. He voted against amendments that would have exempted states already registering 75 percent or more of eligible voters and prohibited an agency from registering any voter receiving direct financial benefits from that agency. He even went so far as to vote against civil penalties for falsely claiming U.S. citizenship.
When Republicans offered an amendment delaying the effective date of the bill until Congress appropriates the estimated $125 million needed to implement it, Robb voted no. He also voted against an amendment allowing registration at military-induction centers. In each instance, Warner was on the other side.
Another perennial point of contention between liberals and conservatives exciting little public interest is the Davis-Bacon Act. This law requires federal contractors to pay the highest prevailing wage in various regions of the country. Obviously, it favors unionized labor and generally translates to substantially higher costs for taxpayers. When an amendment was offered repealing Davis-Bacon, Robb voted to kill it while Warner voted to sustain it.
But there are substantial issues on which the two senators still march in tandem. Both voted against Ted Kennedy's amendment expressing the sense of the Senate that Clinton's energy tax should not apply to fuel used for home heating. Both supported Sen. Nunn's amendment, narrowly rejected, restricting the growth of all federal entitlements except Social Security.
This time around, however, it's Republicans who are trying to make political capital out of Social Security. And who can blame them? For years, Democrats have demagogued this issue and won a good many elections in the process. But now it's a Democratic president who seeks to "cut" Social Security benefits by increasing the tax that must be paid on them. When Republicans offered an amendment replacing the tax increase on Social Security benefits with new spending cuts, Robb voted against it.
And Robb showed the last full measure of devotion to Clintonomics in voting against a meaningless amendment expressing the sense of the Senate that the Finance Committee should "make every effort" to find additional sources of revenue in order to avoid increasing taxes on Social Security benefits.
Robb also cast tough votes upholding Clinton's proposed elimination of a cost-of-living increase for federal workers in fiscal 1994, and refusing to exempt airline fuel from the president's new energy tax. In sum, Robb has been remarkably consistent in trying to keep Clinton's fiscal plan intact while Warner has given it the back of his hand.
But Robb's loyalty hasn't been confined to fiscal issues. He has embraced Clinton's call to open the military to declared homosexuals, and even supported the president's position in favor of allowing permanent immigration to the U.S. of persons testing HIV-positive.
While a Clinton partisan could find much to cheer in Robb's devotion, it's hard to know how much he is helping himself in the battle he must now face to win the Democratic nomination for a second term.
But the crafty Warner, who drew a weak Democratic opponent in 1984 and none at all in 1990, is clearly betting that a Democrat in the White House makes his political road easier.
Ray L. Garland is a Roanoke Times & World-News columnist.